Eric Cline makes a good case that the Bronze Age empires were organized around a “palace economy”, where only certain people (royals & their pals) were even allowed to trade. In some places the sovereign literally owned all the land and people on it.
One can imagine that a series of bad seasons, natural disasters, invasions & other stressors would open a window for revolt.
Yes tin was a factor, yes the “Sea Peoples” were a factor. But you don’t get the wholesale overthrow of so many empires without the common people being at least somewhat welcoming of the invaders (when not happily assisting them!) in throwing off centuries of elite oppression.
Chattel slavery and the Russian serf system were very different. Notably, the plantation owners weren't themselves bound into feudal service to an emperor, they got to have a "modern" relationship with a state.
Er, no. 19th century USA was a pretty advanced (technologically and culturally) civilization and yet with an extremely backward system of feudalism even by bronze age standards.
Seems political progress is not so important after all.
cobbzilla · · focus · HN ↗
One can imagine that a series of bad seasons, natural disasters, invasions & other stressors would open a window for revolt.
Yes tin was a factor, yes the “Sea Peoples” were a factor. But you don’t get the wholesale overthrow of so many empires without the common people being at least somewhat welcoming of the invaders (when not happily assisting them!) in throwing off centuries of elite oppression.
brnt · · focus · HN ↗
Russia was like this till 1861! And arguably practically for much longer so, perhaps still.
otabdeveloper4 · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
brnt · · focus · HN ↗
otabdeveloper4 · · focus · HN ↗
Er, no. 19th century USA was a pretty advanced (technologically and culturally) civilization and yet with an extremely backward system of feudalism even by bronze age standards.
Seems political progress is not so important after all.
brnt · · focus · HN ↗